oddjob Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Tried searching and couldn't find anything. Anyways there was a stage today where it was written as shoot'em as you see'em. The intent of the stage was to have the shooter go to a corner of a wall and shoot a single popper in front of a no shoot. Then proceed to a port where three paper targets were to be shot and so on. The distance between corner and port was about 15 feet. I saw that I could go directly to the port, shoot the paper and with one hand shoot the same popper by aiming through the mesh wall at an angle. The angle also took out the no shoot behind the popper as a penalty possibility. One of the match folks talked to me and I said I didn't fire through the mesh, but aimed through it with my gun through the port. He them started to tell me about the mesh was supposed to be a vision barrier and not the intent of the course & etc. No one could tell me a rule off hand prohibiting what I did. I signed the sheet and it flew. My question is aiming through the mesh legal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Seems OK to me. A mesh wall isn't a vision barrier. Don't want it to happen, hang a true vision barrier there. (a NS target or two might do, or a couple of barrels) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 As a match director I always get folks trying to game the stages. The stage designer designed the stage with something in mind that he/she wanted you to do, but as a gamer, you found a loophole. Since the stage description did not say you couldn't, then there should be no reason you couldn't. IT'S FREESTYLE. That's what stage designers have to do...is look to see where the holes are. As Flex said, they should have put up a couple no shoots, barrels, or other vision barriers or stated in the stage description that walls were non-transparent (yea, non-transparent sounds funny, but with limited funds, we have to draw limits, even in free style). There statement of "...was suppose to be...and not the intent.." does not follow the "Free Style" format of USPSA. PPP (pi$$ poor planning) on their part does not mean you can't shoot it that way on your part. If you design it, they will come, they will shoot, and they will find ways to shoot it you would never have thought of. This past local match, I had a few gamers shoot a stage of mine and after watching, I decided to follow suit to save time. After the first guy shot it, I said to myself..."Self, you should have thought of that hole". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GentlemanJim Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Giggle I just love loopholes When I see them first...and am one of the last to shoot ..its even Better Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddjob Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 What I usually do is point these things out during the walk through and settle it before shots are fired and so that everyone can see what I'm talking about. I figure its the right thing to do. But there have been times where I/we didn't see it till half the shooters have been through it already. Then its "game face" time! Thanks for the response! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatland Shooter Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I don't know if it was included in the written stage briefing, but Oddjob indicates it was clear "the intent of the stage was to have the shooter go to a corner of a wall and shoot a single popper in front of a no shoot". The intent was clear that the snowfence was a vision barrier. Rule 1.1.5 Freestyle - USPSA matches are freestyle. Competitors must be permitted to ....... shoot target on an "as and when visible" basis. Honoring the wall as a vision barrier, the targets he engage while "looking through the wall" were not visible from that port and cannot be engaged. Penalties would apply per Rule 10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedureal penalty for each occurance. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance the competitor may be assessed one procedureal penalty for each shot fired ... Since Oddjob saved the time to travel 15 feet, the RO may well have decided that a significant advantage was gained. As for "a mesh wall isn't a vision barrier", I've been to many matches where walls are constructed of snow fence and they were considered both physical barriers and vision barriers. Along with the money saved by using snow fence material instead of a solid sheet of plastic or plywood, the ability to see through a snow fence can on occasion make shooting a stage safer. A complex maze with lots of corners comes to mind. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddjob Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) The written description was as follows "At the signal, draw, and engage all targets from area A." That was it. The "intent" was told to me by one of the club staff members. One of the other staff members said I had simply gamed it out better and that they should have put up barrels or no shoots to block my view. We all shot matches where we approach a port, doorway, or whatever and see the targets through the mesh before we arrive there and then set up to shoot. What I did was aim through the mesh. That brings up another related question. If the course of fire says no aiming through the mesh (like I did)....can you still do it? If someone sticks the gun through the port (safely of course) and fires and hits the popper/target without DELIBERATE aiming (like the "engage" rule)....Is that the same? How do you enforce the course description that describes the mesh as vision barriers and procedurals will occur? *I'm not trying to be a smart a**. I really don't know the answers. Edited January 17, 2011 by oddjob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elynch2007 Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Aiming through a mesh/snow fence wall is not a penialy. Shooting through a mesh/snow fence wall normal is a penialy, because all walls,and barrels are normal considered hardcover. The key phrase is mesh wall and not mesh softcover. Most of the time the WSB will state this at clubs that use them. Snow fence walls are lighter and if in an area gets a lot of wind, they will remain standing better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flatland Shooter Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The written description was as follows "At the signal, draw, and engage all targets from area A." That was it. The "intent" was told to me by one of the club staff members. One of the other staff members said I had simply gamed it out better and that they should have put up barrels or no shoots to block my view. We all shot matches where we approach a port, doorway, or whatever and see the targets through the mesh before we arrive there and then set up to shoot. What I did was aim through the mesh. That brings up another related question. If the course of fire says no aiming through the mesh (like I did)....can you still do it? If someone sticks the gun through the port (safely of course) and fires and hits the popper/target without DELIBERATE aiming (like the "engage" rule)....Is that the same? How do you enforce the course description that describes the mesh as vision barriers and procedurals will occur? *I'm not trying to be a smart a**. I really don't know the answers. In this case you were at a monthly club match (Level 1) and you shot the stage in compliance with the written stage briefing. You successfully gamed the stage. In a bigger match the stage designers will be a little more careful in the Stage Procedure. Sometimes the stage designer may not know a snow fence wall will be used. Usually we will "adjust" either the stage (add no-shoots or barrels or something) or change the written stage briefing to accomidate things like this. A simple written comment on the briefing such as "the snow fence represents a vision barrier" would suffice. If the popper were "accidentally" hit from a port where it was not considered a visible target, the RO will stop the shooter, declare this a range equipment failure, and require the competitor to re-shoot the stage. Rule 4.6.1 My guess, in a big match where a shooter decides to utilize this loophole, the Match Officials may declare this a "Forbidden Action" [Rule 2.3.1.1.a] and require that the competitor reshoot the stage. All remaining competitors will need to be notified of this change. Should later competitors, after being advised this is a forbidden action, decide to use the loophole, Rule 10.2.11 kicks in with that competitor zero'ing the stage. As for enforcing the course description that describes the mesh as vision barriers, that's the RO's job. In this case, if you are at the wrong port and the popper takes a hit, he knows there is a problem. And like you, I really don't know all the answers. I just do the best I can. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markcic Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 My guess, in a big match where a shooter decides to utilize this loophole, the Match Officials may declare this a "Forbidden Action" [Rule 2.3.1.1.a] and require that the competitor reshoot the stage. All remaining competitors will need to be notified of this change. Should later competitors, after being advised this is a forbidden action, decide to use the loophole, Rule 10.2.11 kicks in with that competitor zero'ing the stage. According to rule 2.3.1.1.b you can't compelling or limiting competitor movement with a forbidden action. [Rule 2.3.1.1.b] The declaration of a Forbidden Action cannot be used as a means of compelling or limiting competitor movement within a course of fire (e.g., to prevent a shooter from “cutting the cor- ner” on an L-shaped shooting area). Except as provided in Rule 1.1.5.1, a course designer wishing to compel or limit competitor movement must do so using target placement, vision barriers and/or physical barriers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Smith Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Well, I have a lot to learn, but I was under the impression that regardless of what it is made of, a wall, is a wall, is a wall. And walls are opaque and you are not supposed to be able to sight through them unless your last name is Kent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe4d Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 (edited) Lets leave the mind reading out of USPSA, and never ever use the word "intent" again. If it isnt in the rule book or the WSB then it isnt there. WHat the stage designers intent was or wasnt is irrelevant. Shoot em as you see em, means just that. The WSB could easily state, Snow fencing is considered a solid impenetrable non see through wall, Even then you could have someone stick a gun through and claim to be point shooting a target which I have done on more than one port. Your gonna have to use a couple no shoots near the ports if it really makes alot of difference on the stage,, Kudos to Mark R. That is exactly the type of match directors this sport should have. Edited January 17, 2011 by Joe4d Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Penalties would apply per Rule 10.2.2 A competitor who fails to comply with a procedure specified in the written stage briefing will incur one procedureal penalty for each occurance. However, if a competitor has gained a significant advantage during non-compliance the competitor may be assessed one procedureal penalty for each shot fired ... Since Oddjob saved the time to travel 15 feet, the RO may well have decided that a significant advantage was gained. The key wording is in bold above. You can't go giving procedural penalties without a clearly specified procedure...in the WSB. Intent doesn't cut it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 If the popper were "accidentally" hit from a port where it was not considered a visible target, the RO will stop the shooter, declare this a range equipment failure, and require the competitor to re-shoot the stage. Rule 4.6.1 "Considered visible" ??? I am pretty sure your WSB would say something along the lines of "shoot the targets, when visible, from within the shooting area" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexmoney Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Well, I have a lot to learn, but I was under the impression that regardless of what it is made of, a wall, is a wall, is a wall. And walls are opaque and you are not supposed to be able to sight through them unless your last name is Kent. Not all walls are opaque. Heck, there are only "hard cover" because we declare them to be so in the rule book. As of yet, we don't have any pretend [declared] vision barriers. I have no idea how we would police that if we did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Hmm, we have started to see a lot more mesh in use at our local clubs, and to tell the truth, I never thought of them as different from a solid wooden wall. You have pointed out a potential flaw that I will have to point out to all of the match directors in my section. I don't recall if our last sectional indicated it, but almost all of the stages with walls were the orange mesh, and not a single shooter shot through them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sperman Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 The forbidden action rule could be used in this instance. A very similar situation occurred at the Ga State match last year (do you want to chime in Mark?) The issue wasn't aiming through a mesh wall, but a shooter found a loophole that eliminated a significant portion of the course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I like mesh walls because they are more wind resistant, lighter and easier to move, and lets the RO see downrange to ensure that the state is clear. But it is always helpful to put a "All walls are considered hardcover ....." verbiage in the Stage Briefing when using them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 I like mesh walls because they are more wind resistant, lighter and easier to move, and lets the RO see downrange to ensure that the state is clear. But it is always helpful to put a "All walls are considered hardcover ....." verbiage in the Stage Briefing when using them. Why? 9.1.6 already addresses that..... I'm not a fan of restating the rulebook in stage descriptions..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFlowers Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Because shooters often see mesh and think "Soft Cover". A simple statement in the Stage Briefing removes that confusion. But you are correct. By definition in 9.1.6, all cover is hard unless otherwise defined as "Soft Cover". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark R Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 According to rule 9.1.6..."...deemed to be impenetrable “hard cover”..." does not mean non-transparent hard cover such as bullet proof glass. You can see through it, but you can't shoot through it. So I'd have to use the Stage Description also to define "non-transparent" to be 100% sure a competitor would not aim through the mesh (or put up no-shoots/barrels/vision barriers). Guess I need to review my stage descriptions too after this one since we use construction barrier and window screen for walls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oddjob Posted January 17, 2011 Author Share Posted January 17, 2011 Just to be clear in my situation there was a wall (mesh), a port, and stuck my gun through the port, and aimed through the mesh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 This is one of the main reasons I HATE Mesh Walls. You can see targets before you get to the port or the end of a wall and set up on them. You can aim through them. Solid Walls do not allow for this. I can see where the mesh might prevent shooting and also allow vision for safety, but then I would use a combination of Solid and mesh. Solid walls at corners and around ports, mesh between to 'block' shooting from non-shooting positions. All Mesh is just wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vluc Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Thread drift. We see the move to mesh as a result of fewer helpers, so lighter walls require fewer people and matches can take place. I prefer solid walls, as it changes the dynamics of the shooting as opposed to a see-though wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Norman Posted January 17, 2011 Share Posted January 17, 2011 Thread drift again (maybe) We use the "Cheap" stockade fence. We try to buy the really light stuff, boards are about 5/16 thick. Don't get the stuff that is rounded on one side, get the stuff that is FLAT. They are LIGHT. Set up? One A-Frame brace, two screws, two spikes. I can't see mesh being easier. You have to have the frames, you have to carry them, you have to brace them and you have to BUILD the frames to begin with. Some of our walls are into their 4th or 5th year! Oh, one other thing, Solid Walls maintain the "Practical" in US-PRACTICAL-Shooting-Association. We are actively pursuing a gudgeon and pintel design to make connecting the walls together even easier. Not sure where that will wind up yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts